So anyone getting sold on the UK model. 6 weeks campaigning then vote?<br><br>I used to think it was terrible that life was unfair. Then I thought what if life were fair and all of the terrible things that happen came because we really deserved them? Now I take comfort in the general unfairness and hostility of the universe.

_________________________I used to think it was terrible that life was unfair. Then I thought what if life were fair and all of the terrible things that happen came because we really deserved them? Now I take comfort in the general unfairness and hostility of the universe.

That wouldn't work here, Llew. Why? Because Britons vote for local politicos, whom they can get to know in 6 weeks, and it's the politicos, presumably the folks who know the major players, who then select the PM. It would be impossible to have a continent-wide election for president in 6 weeks. If we changed to a parliamentary system, then 6 weeks would make sense. But don't hold your breath for such a change. We need our imperator cause we don't have a regina.<br><br>[color:red]&#63743;</font color=red> [color:orange]&#63743;</font color=orange> [color:yellow]&#63743;</font color=yellow> [color:green]&#63743;</font color=green> [color:blue]&#63743;</font color=blue> [color:purple]&#63743;</font color=purple>

Well this is like Bush hunting for WMDs...<br><br>if they keep searching ALL the hospitals in EVERY city in EVERY State ... I'm sure they'll find someone who was turned down that died. <br><br>Hillary is Incompetent.... she can't even lie as good as Bush !<br>What does that say about her qualifications to fill "tha decider's" shoes ? <br><br>David (OFI)

[color:blue]"What does that say about her qualifications to fill "tha decider's" shoes ?"</font color=blue><br><br>Actually, I think Bush might be proud of her.<br>Maybe she could be McCain's Veep. <br><br><br>

_________________________
Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

Can Hillary Clinton go a day without riddling her speeches by untruths and fact-twisting?<br><br>In a speech in Oregon on Saturday, Clinton said, "Clinton on Saturday told Oregonians, "When Sen. Obama came to the Senate he and I have voted exactly the same except for one vote. And that happens to be the facts. We both voted against early deadlines. I actually starting criticizing the war in Iraq before he did."<br><br>[color:blue]Wrong! Very Wrong!</font color=blue><br><br>ABC News Senior National Correspondent Jake Tapper did such a good job talking about this in his blog that I am going to quote him just about word for word:<br><br>"Sen. Hillary Clinton attempted to change the measure by which anyone might assess who criticized the Iraq war first, her or Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., by saying those keeping records should start in January 2005, when Obama joined the Senate. (A measure that conveniently avoids her October 2002 vote to authorize use of force against Iraq at a time that Obama was speaking out against the war.) She claimed that using that measure, she criticized the war in Iraq before Obama did.<br><br>It's an odd way to measure opposition to the war -- comparing who gave the first criticism of the war in Iraq starting in January 2005, ignoring Obama's opposition to the war throughout 2003 and 2004. (And Clinton's vote for it.)<br><br>But even if one were to employ this "Start Counting in January 2005" measurement, Clinton did not criticize the war in Iraq first.<br><br>Scrambling to support their boss's claim, Clinton campaign officials pointed to a paper statement Clinton issued on Jan. 26, 2005, explaining her vote to confirm Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State.<br><br>"The Administration and Defense Department's Iraq policy has been, by any reasonable measure, riddled with errors, misstatements and misjudgments," the January 2005 Clinton statement said. "From the beginning of the Iraqi war, we were inadequately prepared for the aftermath of the invasion with too few troops and an inadequate plan to stabilize Iraq."<br><br>But Obama offered criticisms of the war in Iraq eight days before that, directly to Rice, in his very first meeting as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Jan. 18.<br><br>Obama pushed Rice on her answers to previous questioners regarding the effectiveness of Iraqi troops, and he criticized the administration for conveying a never-ending commitment to a US troop presence in Iraq.<br><br>"I am concerned about this notion that was pursued by Senator Biden and others that we've made significant progress in training troops," Obama told Rice "Because it seems to me that in your response to Senator Alexander that we will not be able to get our troops out absent the Iraqi forces being able to secure their own country, or at least this administration would not be willing to define success in the absence of such security. I never got quite a clear answer to Senator Biden's question as to how many troops -- Iraqi troops -- don't just have a uniform and aren't just drawing a paycheck, but are effective enough and committed enough that we would willingly have our own troops fighting side-by- side with them. The number of 120,000 you gave, I suspect, does not meet those fairly stringent criteria that Senator Biden was alluding to. I just want to make sure, on the record, that you give me some sense of where we're at now."<br><br>Obama concluded his brief q&a by saying "if our measure is bring our troops home and success is measured by whether Iraqis can secure their own circumstances, and if our best troops in the world are having trouble controlling the situation with 150,000 or so, it sounds like we've got a long way to go. And I think part of what the American people are going to need is some certainty, not an absolute timetable, but a little more certainty than is being provided, because right now, it appears to be an entirely open-ended commitment."<br><br>

_________________________
Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

Okay maybe I am wrong?<br><br>My understanding is that by Federal law - NO patient can be turned away by a hospital based on racial or financial means. There is or was a system that the federal gov did pay to hospitals that emitted patients that did not have any medical plans or money to pay their medical bill. The problem is that the Feds took forever to reimburse hospitals and when they did it average about 50% of the total cost.<br><br>Bottom line;<br>That hospital did the turn away via employees instructed to do so via bean counters.<br><br>

Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.

All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.